Consumer Reports Slams Domestic Autos

[Scot]

My dad believes CR is the bible. He will not own anything that is not a Toyota, even after 3 decades of experience, based on CR.



'73 Toyota Celica burned 2 sets of valves before being totalled at 33K Dealer maintanance by the book.



'74 Toyota Hilux traded just over 1 year old with holes rusted in the doors.



Several domestic vehicles with few problems.



~'95 Camary traded on lemon law because the transmission shifted "like someone hitting a barrel head with a 4lb hammer. " Dealer could not fix it.



~98 T100 traded at about 80K. No oil pressure-dealer maintenance by the book, including oil changes.







I was looking at CR back in the late '70's. They were comparing 2 identical cars except for engine. The interior on one was great and the other awful. You are telling me that the interiors on cars rolling down the same assembly line know what engines propel them and adapt to it? I think not!



CR- don't waste your money.

 

[mcoleman]

I've often wondered about their rust problems on the Toyota's. I have friends that drive them and they all seem to rust out very quickly. One has an early 90s 4X4 truck and it has worse rust than a 73 Chevy. And that's bad. He has also had 2 blown head gaskets, 1 clutch, and the frontend had to be totally rebuilt around 80,000 miles. I guess he thinks it's worth it for the 25 mpg.

 

[merryman]

Interesting how our personal experiences differ;

Rusty had bad luck with Fords and good luck with Volvos.



My Volvo was a piece of JUNK; It had five (5) trips to the dealer for fairly substantial engine work before 50K. At about 50K it needed a transmission overhaul and it just got back from the transmission job when I went out to go to work one morning and it would not go.

Differential self destructed. It was that way the whole time I had it. I was darn near afraid to take it out on the highway.

On the other hand, I put between 250K and 300K on two T-birds and did not touch the things mechanically except for a power steering pump on one of them at about 75K. My daughter is still driving the '97 (Correction, thats an 1987)with way over 200K on it and STILL no engine, transmission or differential problems. That thing is bullit proof!!

I guess you can get a good one or a poor one.



I have run two buicks similiar miles and have yet to work on an engine, transmission or diff. on one of them.



Vaughn

 

[mcoleman]

My Mother has a Buick Park Avenue that has over 200K with 0 problems also that they bought new before she retired. Of course my family lives and breathes Buick since that is what we choose to race. We've had an 87 T-Type ( same thing as a Grand National) since it was new that has been raced it's whole life and still hasn't had the valve covers off the engine. It has had the transmission replaced but it runs 11s in the 1/4 so it's earned a transmission change. And I would still choose my Ram over the little foreign trucks that don't serve a purpose. I can live with the brake problems and lift pump every now and then as that is the only things that have failed in 113,000 miles.

 

[pdolan]

No offense, guys, but personal experience with one or two vehicles, while interesting, isn't really relavent. For instance, I just did the ignition wiring, etc. on a buddy's wife's Sunbird with 287k Kms (188k miles) and from what I can see, it is the first time anyone has been in there at all! Does this mean I should go out and buy a Sunbird for my kids? Not bloody likely. Similarly, I have a Jetta TD with 600 that has only been apart at the 500k mark (300k mi. ) but I can't recommend it for everyone.



What makes a good or bad car may be somewhat subjective, but a right proper POS that occurs in a significant proportion of the production run is definitely a matter for concern. Unfortunately, for that most of us have to rely on the print media. CR, while it may have the best of intentions, doesn't seem to do a very good job of the big stuff, and gets tangled up in the trivia. For that matter, the enthusiast publications are also reluctant to slam an advertiser.



If I were to buy a car without the benefit of experience, I would go to the support group websites and befriend a mechanic or two at the related large dealerships to get an honest lowdown on the big picture. If I had taken my own advice, I would not own a Ford F-450 Powerjoke today (We also have a bunch of CTDs, thanks to you guys).



Pat

 

[mcoleman]

I've been repairing and working on vehicles for the past 20 years or so. Personally I don't take dealership techs info on anything. Most of them have a biased opinion and lately I've seen a bunch of them with no trouble shooting skills what so ever. I buy a vehicle because I either like the vehicle or something about it appealed to me not because CR or any other rag said it was a good buy. Asking a dealerships tech about problems is likely to send you away screaming and not wanting to purchase anything from that brand . Ask a Chevy truck tech if the trucks are good and he will unload on you about how many are always coming back for this that and the other because that is what they see all day. I have a good friend that worked for the local DC dealer for 22 years. His opinion of Dodge trucks is that they are all junk and are constantly in the shop for transmissions, intake gasket leaks, wiring issues, brakes etc. . He drives Chevy trucks and couldn't understand why I chose the Dodge. My opinion of Chevy trucks after my last Suburban is pretty dang low. I currently wouldn't own a IFS truck if it was given to me. Websites will give you a big picture of the issues with certain vehicles however if you go strictly buy them I'm not sure there would be any Fords on the road. All vehicles will have some type of issue especially if not maintained properly so I tend to stick with picking what suits my taste and needs. I will say that the Cummins powered truck is the only Dodge/ Crys. vehicle I would own as doing cylinder head repairs on mini-vans and some of DC's other V6 and 4 cylinder powered stuff has left a bad taste in my mouth. The friend of mine that is a retired tech did 17 cylinder head R&Rs on DC mini-vans last year alone and 6 transmissions on DC vans yet some of the rags still promote them as being the best on the road.

 

[Dane]

Consumer Reports knows nothing about what makes a good car or truck. They should have stuck to evaluating blenders and such

 

[DaveN]

It's the engineering

I'm an engineer that works for an automotive supplier. We make internal engine(head bolts, conrods, etc. ) and body fasteners for Ford, Honda, Nissan and Toyota.



Ford will buy pretty much anything that assembles. The only time they know that they have a quality problem is if the bolt doesn't go in the hole. Honda will reject parts because they don't like the color or the sheen of the zinc plating, even though the parts are fully functional and will pass every quality test. If the parts aren't perfect, they don't buy them. Period.



We recently got approved for a Toyota part, they pretty much came in and helped us to rewrite all of our quality processes because "they weren't good enough. " This is after we've been supplying parts to Honda for 12 years.



We lost a part to Ford because we didn't fully participate in their "voluntary" cost reduction program. The part was awarded to a supplier who came in at lower cost, but couldn't deliver the volume. This resulted in numerous quality issues, line stoppages, etc. But purchasing saved their money, so Ford must be better off right?



The import companies are managed by quality first, cost later, and always have been. The big three are managed by cost, then quality. They are starting to come around (the big three) but it might be too late.



The difference in philospohy was that when the Japanese automakers came to the US, they knew that the stereotype of their product was that it's cheap import junk. They knew that if they supplied cheap import junk that they would not succeed in the marketplace. They also knew that the big three (at that time) designed their components to last 100,000 miles or less. So they started to design their components to last longer. Lo and behold most of their cars outlasted their american counterparts, and sales improved. So the imports kept raising their design life and quality requirements, and they were learning all along how to design things to last longer. Meanwhile, the Big three sat on their tails, confident that people will stil want to "buy american. " But the problem is that when people are spending six months or more of their salary on a vehicle, most people don't have the luxury of trading a car in every two or three years. So if they can buy a car that will last, they will, regardless of the name on the tailgate. The second thing the imports did was start building the cars in the US. This gave them thousands of employees who are now getting paid union wages without being in the union, and are probably going to buy one of their cars. This again takes more market share from the Big Three, and gives them more exposure.



So today, we've got the big three losing market share, and they finally realize that it's all about quality. So they are catching up, but they still have this corporate philosophy of "buy the cheap components" that they are trying to overcome. Big three cars are much better than they were ten or even five years ago, but it might be a little too late.



The other thing to keep in mind is that vehicle life depends on the perception of the owner. "my mom drove a car for 200,000 miles and never did a thing to it" means different things to different people. Was it maintained better than average? Did this guy actually change the transmission fluid every 36,000 miles? Maybe not, but I'm guessing that vehicle was maintained pretty well. I'd also guess that 90% of the miles were at 70 MPH on a freeway somewhere. When you evaluate brand quality, you have to look at the bell curve. Any manufacturer will get some cars to last 300 thousand miles, but what percentage of their cars will? As an example, we hear of CTD's that last 1,000,000 miles. We all know that they all won't last that long, I know for a fact that mine wont. Not the way I drive it. But I would expect my engine to last 200,000 plus, based on what I hear from the rest of the guys here at the TDR that cheange their oil and filter every 3, 5k miles. I know that the rest of the truck will be a squeaky leaky rattle trap, but it will start run and move.



Sorry about the rant - throwing my pennies in the pile.

 

[jzaremski]

We lost a part to Ford because we didn't fully participate in their "voluntary" cost reduction program.

good old "MCR" actions.

The import companies are managed by quality first, cost later, and always have been. The big three are managed by cost, then quality.

That, sir, is it in a nutshell.

But purchasing saved their money, so Ford must be better off right?

Yep. Once purchasing beats the cost down, actually managing the supplier and releasing the part becomes engineering's problem.



The atmosphere inside Ford is a little adversarial right now, it would seem...

 

[Mike Ellis]

DaveN's comments confirm my suspicions. Clearly we have the ability to engineer, manufacture, and produce parts that are up to the highest quality standards (after all, his firm does sell to the Japanese companies successfully). We have had tremendous quality successes in many industries, for example in military hardware we make arguably the best products in the world.

Ford went through the same gyrations most of the other big American companies have gone through - promoting non-engineering "fast track" candidates up the ladders, marginalizing technical people, and it has cost them big. Their new top man has punted and is going back to the old methods in desperate hope of returning to success.

Too little, too late? We will soon see.

 

[Hohn]

LSMITH- GREAT POST

Here's a few things to keep in mind:



1) Argument of Foreign-made vs. American made doesn't mean much anymore if you go by brands. DC makes vehicles in Mexico, US, and Canada. Toyota builds in the US, as does Honda. There's a lot of import in the domestics, and a lot of domestics that are imported!!



2) One person's personally experience is not really relevant except to that person- you can't generalize from such a small sample. Statisticians will tell you that in ANY poll, the results are "statistically insignificant" unless the sample size is over 1500!! So unless you have owned 1500 vehicles of a certain make, your results represent just dumb luck, not a trend in a statistical sense.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~



LSMITH and others are right when the nailed it: corporate climate has EVERYTHING to do with it.



The key difference for the Japanese workers is NOT that they approach their work with the Socialist attitude of company first, self last. Nor is the problem with American workers their Capitalistic drive to seek their own benefit.



The problem is simple: U-A-W.



Yes, the UAW is the single largest reason that American companies are lagging behind, and also why so many domestic manufacturers have moved operations out of country.



THE UAW is bad because it artificially drives up the cost of labor. Where else can you find a job that requires little or NO college education but still make 20, 30, or 40 dollars an hour? Often times, these employees are "skilled" with something that you could easily teach a teenager to do for minimum wage. Yes, that nurse who went to college and works LONG shifts at the hospital make the same amount of money per hour as the UAW member who works a standard 9-5, didn't have to go to school, has lots of benefits, and installs door handles on the assembly line.



In a market economy, workers are paid what their skill is worth, which is determined by the market. If a CEO makes more than a lettuce picker, it's because the market values one skill much more than another. If you don't like it, go be a CEO!



Don't take this to mean that this work isn't honorable- it certainly is. Anyone who is out there producing something is worthy of respect. Working minimum wage is respectable-- you are at least working. Working minimum wage and living at home at age 35 is perhaps a little less repectable, as most people have SOME degree of ambition to advance in their professions.



I generally despise unions, and the UAW has proven that most unions are relics from a bygone era that now serve only to protect a workforce from the competition that would benefit it, and drive up labor cost.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



That said, cost-cutting isn't such a big deal as you might think. How much do you think it costs GM to build a new Tahoe? Yes-- less than $4000. No zeros missing, just huge economies of scale. Given their selling price, I would say that they are making a decent cut on each vehicle sold, wouldn't you?

The reason vehicles cost so much is simply because Americans are willing to pay that price. It's supply and demand. If that shiny new SpeedCar 2000 costs 30 grand and you REALLY want it, then you will pay 30 grand. Unless someone else is willing to pay more for it-- then you, too will pay more.

It's a GOOD thing for companies to be "beholden to shareholders". That's how a corporation is supposed to work. The more the shares of ownership are spread out, the more accountable they are because power isn't concetrated.

If Americans kept their vehicles longer, and drove them 10 or 15 years instead of the 3 that is average, then prices would come down as demand dropped. Also, the depreciation on a car would be MUCH less because there would simply be a lot fewer used cars out there (from less turnover), so the lower supply of used cars will drive the price of used cars up. When the cost of used cars goes up, depreciation goes down.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have had success with my import cars- a nissan maxima and a honda or two. I have had success with my american cars too-- old Mopars mostly.

I will buy the car i like the best no matter whose name is on it. Heck, I would buy a KIA if I thought they were reliable, well-made vehicles at a low price. I just happen to think they are crap. CR is useful as far as documenting how often things have to be repaired. After that, it's useless, since they prioritize idiotic things and ignore big things.

Hondas and Toyotas command a premium price because they have earned a reputation as a better-made, more reliable car.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The main difference I see from one company to another is their attitude about quality. Some companies seem to say "there's always a better way". Others seem to say "Good enough is good enough". I think Ford's 6. 0 launch reveals which thought THEY are thinking.

If it weren't for the brand loyalty of all the deluded Ford lovers, capitalism could work effectively and either 1) force Ford to get back to "quality is job 1", or 2) Put Ford out of business.....









HOHN

 

[Hohn]

DaveN:



Perhaps the best post I have seen in a year. If I would have bothered to read all the way down, I wouldn't have had to type so much!



Just imagine if all the OEMs used ARP brand fasteners for example. I mean, the very reason there IS an aftermarket is because of factory corner-cutting.



The aftermarket exist for domestic cars to make them better. The aftemarket for imports is mostly to make them "different"-- they're already using the best parts you can find.....



I hope the American companies can catch up, and even pass the Japanese. All consumers will benefit from the competition.



HOHN

 

[Steve M]

And Hohn said,

THE UAW is bad because it artificially drives up the cost of labor



How much do you think it costs GM to build a new Tahoe? Yes-- less than $4000. No zeros missing, just huge economies of scale. Given their selling price, I would say that they are making a decent cut on each vehicle sold, wouldn't you?



The reason vehicles cost so much is simply because Americans are willing to pay that price



It's a GOOD thing for companies to be "beholden to shareholders".









That's all you needed to say to contradict yourself...

 

[jzaremski]

THE UAW is bad because it artificially drives up the cost of labor.

Drivel. You think the assembly workers in Marysville and Smyrna don't have competitve wages and benefits? If they didn't, the UAW would have been in there long ago.

That said, cost-cutting isn't such a big deal as you might think. How much do you think it costs GM to build a new Tahoe? Yes-- less than $4000.

Balderdash. On a fully loaded Tahoe, GM will typically make $10k. Which means that production cost per vehicle is at least $20k.

It's a GOOD thing for companies to be "beholden to shareholders".

So when profits turn sour and the stock price drops, it's a GOOD thing for the automakers to start cutting corners on quality for short-term profit gains? Wow.

If it weren't for the brand loyalty of all the deluded Ford lovers, capitalism could work effectively and either 1) force Ford to get back to "quality is job 1", or 2) Put Ford out of business.....

You say that while Ford stock is in the dumper, they're cancelling vehicles and programs left and right, and they're barely making money? Interesting.

Others seem to say "Good enough is good enough". I think Ford's 6. 0 launch reveals which thought THEY are thinking.

My Dakota says that Chrysler thinks the same way.

 

[Texas Diesel]

Here is my gripe:



In 95 I bought a Toyota V-6, 4WD PU. Total POS, dealer bought me out and gave me a Japan built V-6, 4WD PU, it was in the shop more than I had it. At 6k miles I dumped it for a Dodge Dakota V-8, 4WD PU, it was in the shop once and we sold it at 192,000 miles and it is still going. The same year (95) I was so impressed with the Dodge Dakota's over the Toyota POS that I ordered another Dakota, it was in the shop a total of 5 or 6 times (minor stuff) and we sold it at 98,000 miles, and still miss it.



The same time, CR said basically the Toyota trucks were made in heaven and the Dodge Dakota's were not worth anything.



I cancelled my CR sunscription and have never looked back.



CR is full of manure and I would never base a decision on their biased reports.

 

[merryman]

I may be all wet, but I still believe that at the bottom of it all, its substantially due to the politically correct and popular past time of American bashing; andhat I believe carries over to the job done on the assembly line.

It started with the anti ameican attitude of the war protest of the viet nam era, and is perpetuated BECAUSE its popular and politically correct.

Sure, to be a meaningfull sample, you need a large sample, but I started out in 1950 with a 1940 Chevy, then a '47 Buick and the in 1953 a near new 1952 Pontiac, its been that way ever since.

Thats more than a "couple" cars.

In all the American made cars/trucks only ONE has given me more than minor problems and that was the engine in my 1984 Ford--made in Canada.

Of all my foreign made cars only two did not give me major repair problems. To me thats enough comparison to be significant!!

Whenever possible, I buy American;when ever possible I avoid made in China, France, Japan etc.



Vaughn

 

[Hohn]

Originally posted by Steve M

And Hohn said,

THE UAW is bad because it artificially drives up the cost of labor



How much do you think it costs GM to build a new Tahoe? Yes-- less than $4000. No zeros missing, just huge economies of scale. Given their selling price, I would say that they are making a decent cut on each vehicle sold, wouldn't you?



The reason vehicles cost so much is simply because Americans are willing to pay that price



It's a GOOD thing for companies to be "beholden to shareholders".









That's all you needed to say to contradict yourself...

I guess I have some 'splainin to do...

Yes, the UAW drives up labor costs. The only other way to see it is that a free market would pay someone $30/hr to install windshields on the line. How much do you think groceries would go up if there was a lettuce-pickers union? Anyway, a free market system rewards skilled/educated workers with higher pay. When a UAW worker (HS diploma) makes as much as or more than an RN (master's degree)does, you can BET that something artificial has interefered with the labor market!



I checked with my source on the $4k figure (father of GM plant employee)-- he said it didn't include labor or advertising-- just parts. So 4K in parts, plus labor and all that other stuff. It's easy to see how GM STILL clears $10k of profit on each vehicle. But the $4k figure was not what I thought it was- my apologies.





ECONOMICS 101:

As I said, it's market forces that determine the cost ultimately. No contradiction. Since supply and demand set the price, then the way companies control profits are by controlling costs. Economics tells you that the Price of a Tahoe is determined by what people are willing to pay for a Tahoe- no more (people won't buy it), no less (company always wants highest price it can get). People don't HAVE to have a Tahoe. Or even an SUV for that matter.



Let's get away from the simplistic explanation above and get more into product pricing. Truth is, there's no set price where they will or will not sell a Tahoe. It's a scale, where the number of buyers increases to a point as price drops. The opposite is also true. But it's not absolute: there are people who will not buy a Tahoe at any price, just as there are those who will pay a lot more for one.

So you can BET that GM does a lot of studying to determine what price to charge. For example, if they were selling 30 thousand Tahoes for $30K a pop and found that they only lost a couple hundred sales by jacking the price up to $34K, then you can guess which price they are going to charge.

They are trying to find that ideal price where they can charge as much as possible without getting it so high that the decreased number of sales offsets the higher profit per Tahoe.



But it all comes back to one thing: what people are willing to pay. If no one was willing to pay even $28K for a Tahoe, then what do YOU think the price would be?? I can guarantee it's not going to be higher! Moreover, what do you think would happen to the price of competing SUVs if Tahoes were $6K less than the others? Yes- price drops.



End Econ lesson.



As for companies beholden to shareholders, who would YOU have them to answer to? The Gov't? Some fatcat CEO? Being accountable to shareholders is ideal, because if the shareholders don't like the company or its products, they sell their shares and go elsewhere. Again, it's free market forces at work. When share price drops, it's because investors have a perception about the worth of a company or its products-- specifically, they have a NEGATIVE view of the FUTURE of that company. Share prices for stocks are based on what people think of the future, not what is actually happening. That's why Amazon.com had such a ridiculous (high) share price even though it hadn't turned a PENNY in profit yet. The P/E was infinite! Compare that to more reasonable P/E ratios of about 20 (P/E= price/earnings-- share price divided by corporate earnings per share) for a blue chip company like Coke, IBM, etc...



If there's a bad part of the system, it's that there's not ENOUGH of being "beholden to shareholders". Companies can hide behind layers and layers of bureacracy and accountants to the point where the investors have a hard time getting the straight scoop.



That, and the fact there are a lot of Americans that just plain don't understand how things like this work. Our schools are embarassingly poor at teaching economics.







I too, find that it's the trend to bash American products. I fervently believe that American workers are as capable as any worker anywhere in the world. I am afraid, though, that the American workforce will realize less and less of that God-given potential as our society succumbs to the culture of entitlement and victimization. This hurts ambition and desire to achieve, thus meaning less realized potential in the American workforce. The UAW can hurt the performance of workers IF job security leads to apathy.



Moreover, there are two ways of thinking about worker performance: one says make every job very competitive with no loyalty shown. This fear of unemployment will motivate a worker to perform (well, with gov't support, unemployment isn't so fearful now).

The other school of thought is that you show your workers loyalty and they will repay you with loyalty and good performance. Or with laziness as they wallow in the security of a job the no longer have to earn to keep.



I personally think there's a time and place for each approach. I haven't yet figured out which is better because I see so many things on both sides that seem to say the opposite approach is better. I have not been able to settle that age old struggle between realism and idealism.



HOHN

 

[jmtandem]

consumer reports

Hohn,



I thought this thread was about Consumer Reports bashing American made vehicles, not about the philosophy of unionized workers. I suspect the fact that workers are unionized has very little to do with the Consumer Reports attitude of favoring foreign cars over domestic ones.



My understanding of CR is that all three American manufacturers of full size pick up trucks get poorer than average ratings. How can that be, a full size truck cannot be compared to trucks that do not have the towing capacity, payload, etc? I have lost faith in CR as they are not comparing like or similar products. Just try towing 10,000 pounds behind a Toyota Tacoma and see how long it lasts or put a 3000 pound camper on a Nissan king cab and see how fast problems occur. The trucks are not the same. In my previous thread I noted that CR seems more interested in how nice the plastic trim pieces match, not what that trucks can actually do. Who is paying $30,000 for plastic trim pieces? Aren't we really paying for what the truck can accomplish for us?



I think Toyotas and Nissans are fine products for running to the lumber yard and getting a few pieces of plywood or to the landscape place to pick up a couple small trees or carrying motocross bikes. But for serious heavy hauling they are not in the same league and should not be evaluated similiarly.

 

[Hohn]

Re: consumer reports

Originally posted by jmtandem

Hohn,



I thought this thread was about Consumer Reports bashing American made vehicles, not about the philosophy of unionized workers. I suspect the fact that workers are unionized has very little to do with the Consumer Reports attitude of favoring foreign cars over domestic ones.



My understanding of CR is that all three American manufacturers of full size pick up trucks get poorer than average ratings. How can that be, a full size truck cannot be compared to trucks that do not have the towing capacity, payload, etc? I have lost faith in CR as they are not comparing like or similar products. Just try towing 10,000 pounds behind a Toyota Tacoma and see how long it lasts or put a 3000 pound camper on a Nissan king cab and see how fast problems occur. The trucks are not the same. In my previous thread I noted that CR seems more interested in how nice the plastic trim pieces match, not what that trucks can actually do. Who is paying $30,000 for plastic trim pieces? Aren't we really paying for what the truck can accomplish for us?



I think Toyotas and Nissans are fine products for running to the lumber yard and getting a few pieces of plywood or to the landscape place to pick up a couple small trees or carrying motocross bikes. But for serious heavy hauling they are not in the same league and should not be evaluated similiarly.

Agreed. CR seems to be out of their league when conducting HD pickup evaluations. Of course, to CR, a Tundra IS a HD pickup . They seem to ignore the strengths of trucks in these markets and focus on trivial trifles:



"Our testers found that the seats of the Dodge Ram did not allow adequate vision over the hood for drivers under 4'10". The radio controls use knobs (which is nice) but the knobs are too small for our test elephant to operate. Headroom was adequate for our 6'6" tester, but barely so. While more efficient and reliable than gas engines, the diesel engine was terribly loud. The cupholders are NOT leather-lined, but use cheap rubber instead-- a SERIOUS safety issue.

We rate the Dodge Ram Unacceptable because the lack of leather-lined cupholders could cause a cup to fall out, spilling the drink on your lap. If it's hot coffee, you could be burned and lose control of the vehicle. It may also cause a short circuit in the electrical system and an engine fire.

Regrettably, the capability of this truck to pull an Rv as big as a mobile home is NOT enough to offset the poor cupholder design"



PUH-LEEZ





HOHN

 

[Hohn]

Re: consumer reports

Originally posted by jmtandem

Hohn,



I thought this thread was about Consumer Reports bashing American made vehicles, not about the philosophy of unionized workers. I suspect the fact that workers are unionized has very little to do with the Consumer Reports attitude of favoring foreign cars over domestic ones.

... and *I* suspect that neither does the fact that somebody had certain results with brand X, or someone's mom had such and such.



If you are going to "reprimand" someone for departing thread topics, I suggest you do so across the board, to all whose posts do NOT pertain directly to Consumer Reports



Or, you could just let the moderators do as they see fit... .